Quasigriz wrote:Racism, like religion, is a product of indoctrination and personal experience. No one is born racist just like no one is born Baptist.

Perhaps, instead of kicking back and forth the believed actions of diferently motivated individuals in a limited government, we could instead debate the causes and solutions to racism.

Excellent point Quas, the only true solution I can think of is time.

I dont think Mr. Paul is hoping that racists run in and get to create a white paridise. To be honest I don't think he thinks anyone would ever take advantage of the lack of civil rights laws and abuse the minorities.

However, I can see just that happening. I got lucky, my father is black (so much in fact, the old joke about only seeing him at night if he smiled would be accurate) my mother is a mixed Irish woman, I look like a white man. Being that I look white I have been privy to comments and actions that would never have been done in front of someone who looks black.

I am sad to say that racism is still alive today.

Maybe someday the ADA and civil rights laws will be silly and unnecessary, but that someday has not come to pass yet.

Here is to hoping that I get to see that day. Untill then lets leave the current laws alone and concentrate on the importants stuff, like runnaway wars and good ol boy corruption.

One other thing....don't get sucked into these guys baiting.

They are quick (2-3 mins) to say because they make comments about my hygine and DNA that they have responsed to my base question.But meanwhile they convinently leave the postion held by 'TheAmericanNomad ' found here

They are quick (2-3 mins) to say because they make comments about my hygine and DNA that they have responsed to my base question.But meanwhile they convinently leave the postion held by 'TheAmericanNomad ' found here

unresponded to at all, as perfectly consistant with Civil Libertarian values lo these many hours.

What are you on, i am no CL i am a communist, i have a problem with the incoherent rants and illogical tests that you are throwing out there, i have never supported Ron Paul and think he is a incompetent 70 something year old who laughingly calls his campaign a "revolution". Also raistian77 and myself have ended up agreeing on quite a few issues, i don't hold the same position as TheAmericanNomad , but i do have a issue with what you are saying/typing.

Doondi69 wrote:One big facet of my question is to find out just exactly how WHITE CLs voted for these inititiaves in the past compared to WHITE MLs.

The South is known for a near-total absence of civil libertarians (CLs) and market libertarians (MLs). Throughout American history, South Carolina has been a leading voice for protectionism and tariffs, the polar opposite of what market libertarians advocate. Recently, Alabama has been rounding up immigrants, even children in classrooms, everybody presumed guilty; this is abhorrent to civil liberties! Meanwhile, Tennessee is considering restrictions on Islam and mosques, and has used federal Homeland Security funding to set up an Orwellian police state, complete with roadblock checkpoints to catch terrorists—ala the Palestinian Territories—across the state, the polar opposite of what civil libertarians advocate.

So civil libertarianism, much less market libertarianism, is barely relevant to any discussion of the South. The only civil liberties folks I met in Alabama were at the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they are great people doing wonderful work; unfortunately they work under siege, over 30 people have been jailed in connection with plots to kill the director or blow up the center and counting...they average one felony conviction per year for violence against the SPLC. Because of repeated terrorist attacks and a devastating firebombing in 1983, their new headquarters has 8-ft concrete walls, and is ringed by a high blast wall, and monitored by a 24/7 secret service type private counter-terrorism detail. My large wheelchair van definitely gave them pause...

Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)

Women's Workout World had to hire lawyers to ensure it could keep their workout space for women only.

An "African American" high school group had to go to court over not letting a white girl from Africa not participate in their group.

There are a bazillion and six examples of how this law has gotten out of hand. There's a great reason to keep it in place, but pretty soon the left-handed only store will be discriminated against for not hiring right handed people.

I don't deny the theatre of the absurd discrimination law too often sinks into... But for every weird, isolated court case—our broken "rule of lawyers instead of rule of law" judicial system almost seems designed to push precedent into bizarro world rather than guard against violations of core statute—there's countless instances of segregation left to fester.

With my own eyes, I've seen the retrenchment of segregation in the South. My hometown of Mobile, Alabama was once a shining beacon of racial harmony; Mobile boasts it was the only major city in the Deep South never to suffer race riots. Leaders on both sides of this peaceful, heavily Catholic city made negotiation work instead of the conflagration everywhere else. My college, Spring Hill College ("The Jesuit College of the South") was praised in MLK's Letter from a Birmingham Jail for being the first university in the Deep South to integrate, in 1954. When the KKK tried to burn a cross (highly blasphemous) on campus in response, students chased them off with rocks and baseball bats, a couple of Jesuit priests in tow. We showed how possible integration could be; we showed that not everybody in the Deep South supported the Klan. (Also, people tend to see the world through the lens of their hometown values and upbringing, and this post gives you insight into mine, where I am coming from).

It's been sad watching my hometown leave behind their powerful legacy of peaceful desegregation without even a discussion, like lemmings following the other Southern cities. Accelerating subsequent to the 1991 Supreme Court ruling Board of Education v. Dowell, which—in a 5-3 decision—lifted integration-busing court orders (Thurgood Marshall, on the verge of retiring, wrote the dissenting opinion) school busing has been jettisoned as a relic, and the integrated high school I went to was shuttered. There's been a retrenchment of racial segregation throughout the South—and elsewhere too (see this article about Omaha dividing into separate segregated school districts at the request of the black minority). The reasons for re-segregation are complex and difficult to talk about; it's clear that both communities are fueling this trend.

According to a 2003 Harvard study, following the flurry of court rulings against busing, black students were less integrated at the turn of the millennium than in 1970, "a year before the Supreme Court authorized the busing that became a primary way of integrating schools." These trends have accelerated unabated since 2000. In many of these segregated communities, a kid has a better chance of winning the lottery than meeting a person of different ethnic background than them. The Southwest is building fences to keep Latino "illegal immigrants" out, while the Southeast builds gated communities to keep the "criminal" black people out. It looks as though our broken judiciary will allow entire states to re-segregate, 100 years of progress down the tubes, because we've made the democratic choice for that kind of society. And in a democracy we should be able to choose that; but let's not be blind to the destructive potential of segregation. Separate but equal can never be equal, and invites a myriad of problems.

Mobile has its first black mayor now, and peace and negotiation is still the order of the day, but in places like Atlanta and New Orleans the return to segregationist policies has communities on both sides simmering with racial tension. You can ask Glas about racial violence in Atlanta. Economic and social segregation in New Orleans, not to mention the strict geographic segregation—so extreme you wouldn't believe it—has racial discord at all time highs. Hurricane Katrina (which I barely survived in Mobile) not only devastated New Orleans bow to stern, it opened up a LOT of old wounds. Surprisingly virulent racist memes, including the "lazy ni***r" meme, have come back, big time; too often, Louisiana whites have welcomed that stuff back with open arms.

Ron Paul is right that laws alone can't turn hearts and minds around, and that's an important point, but laws provide enforcement of equal opportunity against the worst injustices. Laws that have dis-empowered the most egregious offenders, especially vis a vis voting rights and equality under the law, have driven most of the progress we've seen.

The United States is by no means out of the woods of segregation—economic and social, not just geographic segregation—so we need to consider the anti-CRA talk carefully. Some may see the CRA as outdated; "yeah, let me put on my bell-bottom jeans and argue the CRA." But it is still relevant. Most recently, the CRA blocked the Texas legislature from gerrymandering Latino representation and influence away. I'm even more concerned about the future, given the South's backsliding with segregation. That's a lot of kindling on the fire, and if you throw in another precipitous economic decline—BOOM!

Nick

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)

Dr. Strangelove wrote:It's impossible to move forward to that future when you have people like Ron Paul constantly proclaiming their intention to undo all the progress made in previous generations. When you have people who then think it's no big deal, or we should just put up with it for the sake of some other issue, then you guarantee this never goes away.

Don't expect people to stop thinking about it when so many others want to move our nation backwards.

I for one would start a business just so I could prevent blacks from patronizing it. It's a good thing the government is there to keep me from doing so....

"I think reasonable people could come up with a sensible standard. But I seem to be the only reasonable person around here." - drtrech

First though, lets start with Mr. Paul. Ron Paul is an old man and since most humans pick up their behaviors and core thinking when they are young I believe it is safe to say that at one time he most had racists thoughts. As for now? I don't know, people can and do change and I don't want to label someone for life based on actions 20 years ago.

But, racism is a weird creature, everyone is guilty of it from time to time. Humans tend to make quick snap judgments, it is a evolutionary reaction, friend or foe? Fight or flight? It is how you process that judgment that matters. Do you take the extra time to find out if you are wrong or are you to lazy and just go with first thought. Vocal tendencies tell allot also, a racist tends to phrase curses about other racial people as "That black motherfucker cut me off" Non-racists tend to phrase it as "That motherfucking black guy cut me off"

Also not all the blame can go on the majority members, minorities like myself have to remember that you can not prove a stereotype wrong by playing to that stereotype. When I see a grown black man with pants at his knees, hat turned to the side, excessive jewelry and a bad attitude like he is just dying to pick a fight, I cringe. My first thought is "Thanks, you just set us back another 50 years." When we call each other 'niggers' and claim that it's okay for us to do it, that sets us back. There is a huge gap between culture and being an attention whore.

Black men and women are born with a huge disadvantage and to make it have to work twice as hard. We have to remember not to fall into the trap off giving up and taking the role as a stereotype because it is easier.

The fool doth think he is wise, but the wise man knows himself to be a fool.

Oh Wait, You're Serious? Let Me Laugh Even Harder!

-"No matter how bad things seem--- ""They could be worse.""Nope. No matter how bad they seem, they can't be any better, and they can't be any worse, because that's the way things fucking are, and you better get used to it, Nancy. Quit yer bitching."

It's not the same kind of racism. Everybody experiences racism from time-to-time. That's not unusual. Ron Paul is something else entirely. This guy is like KKK-racist.

Nor did he just get over it. I see no evidence to indicate this guy somehow experienced an epiphany. Think about what he had to gain as a politician. Had he actually come to terms with that racism and accepted it, he would be able to run an incredibly strong campaign right now. It's his racism that holds him back. And he did NOTHING to explain or atone for his past. Nothing. He won't even admit he did it even when the evidence is all right there. In his own fucking newsletter!

That's not the kind of racism you expect from normal people. This guy is straight-up racist. He can't even make it somewhat tolerable like Buchanan does. This guy makes me sick to my stomach.

Proof positive these whackos are a bunch of cultists is that there does in fact exist a libertarian candidate without all this white nationalist baggage. For all the reasons they seem to think the rest of us should overlook Ron Paul's connections to white nationalism, we could vote for the real libertarian candidate. But they don't really care about that. They are a fucking cult. Plain and simple.

Tradition means giving votes to the most obscure of all classes, our ancestors. It is the democracy of the dead. Tradition refuses to submit to the small and arrogant oligarchy of those who merely happen to be walking about. - G.K.C.

Dr. Strangelove wrote:It's not the same kind of racism. Everybody experiences racism from time-to-time. That's not unusual. Ron Paul is something else entirely. This guy is like KKK-racist.

Nor did he just get over it. I see no evidence to indicate this guy somehow experienced an epiphany. Think about what he had to gain as a politician. Had he actually come to terms with that racism and accepted it, he would be able to run an incredibly strong campaign right now. It's his racism that holds him back. And he did NOTHING to explain or atone for his past. Nothing. He won't even admit he did it even when the evidence is all right there. In his own fucking newsletter!

That's not the kind of racism you expect from normal people. This guy is straight-up racist. He can't even make it somewhat tolerable like Buchanan does. This guy makes me sick to my stomach.

Proof positive these whackos are a bunch of cultists is that there does in fact exist a libertarian candidate without all this white nationalist baggage. For all the reasons they seem to think the rest of us should overlook Ron Paul's connections to white nationalism, we could vote for the real libertarian candidate. But they don't really care about that. They are a fucking cult. Plain and simple.

I dont like Ron Paul, i think his polices are ineffective (well apart from the anti war stance) and his character is questionable to say the least, but a racist? Well its either that or incompetent because how on either could you possibly not know that your news letters had racist slurs in them for any period of time. I am not inclined to believe Paul when he says he isn't racist(because that's what he would say, even if he was) but enough reasonable counter arguments have been said (by people who are members of the cult of Ron Paul's person) that i now doubt his racism, but i do now believe that he is incompetent and stupid for not realising that his newsletter was publishing those racist remarks.

First though, lets start with Mr. Paul. Ron Paul is an old man and since most humans pick up their behaviors and core thinking when they are young I believe it is safe to say that at one time he most had racists thoughts. As for now? I don't know, people can and do change and I don't want to label someone for life based on actions 20 years ago.

But, racism is a weird creature, everyone is guilty of it from time to time. Humans tend to make quick snap judgments, it is a evolutionary reaction, friend or foe? Fight or flight? It is how you process that judgment that matters. Do you take the extra time to find out if you are wrong or are you to lazy and just go with first thought. Vocal tendencies tell allot also, a racist tends to phrase curses about other racial people as "That black motherfucker cut me off" Non-racists tend to phrase it as "That motherfucking black guy cut me off"

Also not all the blame can go on the majority members, minorities like myself have to remember that you can not prove a stereotype wrong by playing to that stereotype. When I see a grown black man with pants at his knees, hat turned to the side, excessive jewelry and a bad attitude like he is just dying to pick a fight, I cringe. My first thought is "Thanks, you just set us back another 50 years." When we call each other 'niggers' and claim that it's okay for us to do it, that sets us back. There is a huge gap between culture and being an attention whore.

Black men and women are born with a huge disadvantage and to make it have to work twice as hard. We have to remember not to fall into the trap off giving up and taking the role as a stereotype because it is easier.

I'd sworn off this site... but since you responded.Thanks so very much for your feedback.

I feel everyone is susceptible to racism. It's like autism, like a spectrum and not merely binary.Racism can also be like a virus... you can have it but never act on it BUT you can pass it to someonelse that will.Racism can also be like a cyst... In Liberals it tends (but not always) to behave in a benign way. Its there but it's not immediately life threatening - quota systems and such (which -unlike a cyst- are good but only to a point).While in others it is a acute malignant!!!

Here I'm using the term "racist" to mean someone who is either indifferent to the voice of black people or is actively seeking to resonate with the sympathies..... People who feel that if black people disappeared tomorrow that it would not be an all together bad thing -- alien invasion, disease, starvation or back to AfricaPeople who feel that if black people disappeared tomorrow would respond really...? I didn't notice.People who feel that if black people disappeared tomorrow would respond really thank heavens... I grew tired of feeding their children.... and did you see their hair? golliwogs!

What I'm trying to tease out in this conversation is.

Does Rons racist ideals, philosophies form or influence his political policy ideals(regarding the need to have a firewall, shielding minorities from those that would use their rights nefariously - because it their restaurant, car dealership, bank).What is the character of the relationship between his racism and political policy? Is it correlational or is there actual 'causality'? Is it Multivariant or single?

If not then, what is it that qualifies him as being "racist".If the answer to that is ONLY the newsletter and comments then, can we say that it is possible for a racist to be in stealthmood and make his way into office?If the only way we can identify Rons racism is by his newsletter then, what if we never found those newsletters/video clips to be able to point to...enter Ran Paul (or some other "small government"/so-called "anti-transfer of wealth"/"taxes and entitlements" candidate).

Should such a group get into power...and more seats what in the empirical history of WHITE (no offense) CLs vote could we point to that would lead us to belief that they would go to the mat, give up the points on which they share common ground in order to preserve the "firewall of federal legislation" to stop Jim Crow-esk influence back into vague.Not official Jim Crow but the hundreds and thousands of daily pin pricks...increased for a lack of fear of likelihood of success in any punitive retaliation.

First though, lets start with Mr. Paul. Ron Paul is an old man and since most humans pick up their behaviors and core thinking when they are young I believe it is safe to say that at one time he most had racists thoughts. As for now? I don't know, people can and do change and I don't want to label someone for life based on actions 20 years ago.

But, racism is a weird creature, everyone is guilty of it from time to time. Humans tend to make quick snap judgments, it is a evolutionary reaction, friend or foe? Fight or flight? It is how you process that judgment that matters. Do you take the extra time to find out if you are wrong or are you to lazy and just go with first thought. Vocal tendencies tell allot also, a racist tends to phrase curses about other racial people as "That black motherfucker cut me off" Non-racists tend to phrase it as "That motherfucking black guy cut me off"

Also not all the blame can go on the majority members, minorities like myself have to remember that you can not prove a stereotype wrong by playing to that stereotype. When I see a grown black man with pants at his knees, hat turned to the side, excessive jewelry and a bad attitude like he is just dying to pick a fight, I cringe. My first thought is "Thanks, you just set us back another 50 years." When we call each other 'niggers' and claim that it's okay for us to do it, that sets us back. There is a huge gap between culture and being an attention whore.

Black men and women are born with a huge disadvantage and to make it have to work twice as hard. We have to remember not to fall into the trap off giving up and taking the role as a stereotype because it is easier.

I'd sworn off this site... but since you responded.Thanks so very much for your feedback.

I feel everyone is susceptible to racism. It's like autism, like a spectrum and not merely binary.Racism can also be like a virus... you can have it but never act on it BUT you can pass it to someonelse that will.Racism can also be like a cyst... In Liberals it tends (but not always) to behave in a benign way. Its there but it's not immediately life threatening - quota systems and such (which -unlike a cyst- are good but only to a point).While in others it is a acute malignant!!!

Here I'm using the term "racist" to mean someone who is either indifferent to the voice of black people or is actively seeking to resonate with the sympathies..... People who feel that if black people disappeared tomorrow that it would not be an all together bad thing -- alien invasion, disease, starvation or back to Africa.

People who feel that if black people disappeared tomorrow would respond Really...? I didn't notice.

People who feel that if black people disappeared tomorrow would respond Really..? thank heavens... I grew tired of feeding their children.... and did you see their hair? golliwogs!

What I'm trying to tease out in this conversation is.

Does Rons racist ideals, philosophies form or influence his political policy ideals(regarding the need to have a firewall, shielding minorities from those that would use their rights nefariously - because it their restaurant, car dealership, bank).What is the character of the relationship between his racism and political policy? Is it correlational or is there actual 'causality'?

If not then, what is it that qualifies him as being "racist".If it is ONLY the newsletter and comments then, can we say that it is possible for a racist to be in stealthmood and make their way into the executive, judicial, legislative office? -- Not acting on his own racism but also not reacting to the racism of malignants in his nation/state/city.If the only way we can identify Rons racism is by his newsletter then, what if we never found those newsletters/video clips to be able to point to...enter the real intentional nomination Rons working for, Ran Paul (or some other "small government"/so-called "anti-transfer of wealth"/"taxes and entitlements" candidate).

Should such a group get into power...and more seats what in the empirical history of WHITE (no offense) CLs vote could we point to that would lead us to belief that they would go to the mat, give up the points on which they share common ground with MLs in order to preserve the "firewall of federal legislation" to stop Jim Crow-esk influence back into fashion.

Not official Jim Crow but the hundreds and thousands of daily pin pricks...increased for a lack of fear of likelihood of success in any punitive retaliation.

"Unhappy events abroad have retaught us two simple truths about the liberty of a democratic people. The first truth is that the liberty of a democracy is not safe if the people tolerate the growth of private power to a point where it becomes stronger than their democratic State itself. That, in its essence, is fascism — ownership of government by an individual, by a group or by any other controlling private power." – President Franklin D. Roosevelt, Simple Truths message to Congress (April 29, 1938)

Doondi69 wrote:One big facet of my question is to find out just exactly how WHITE CLs voted for these inititiaves in the past compared to WHITE MLs.

The South is known for a near-total absence of civil libertarians (CLs) and market libertarians (MLs). Throughout American history, South Carolina has been a leading voice for protectionism and tariffs, the polar opposite of what market libertarians advocate. Recently, Alabama has been rounding up immigrants, even children in classrooms, everybody presumed guilty; this is abhorrent to civil liberties! Meanwhile, Tennessee is considering restrictions on Islam and mosques, and has used federal Homeland Security funding to set up an Orwellian police state, complete with roadblock checkpoints to catch terrorists—ala the Palestinian Territories—across the state, the polar opposite of what civil libertarians advocate.

So civil libertarianism, much less market libertarianism, is barely relevant to any discussion of the South. The only civil liberties folks I met in Alabama were at the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they are great people doing wonderful work; unfortunately they work under siege, over 30 people have been jailed in connection with plots to kill the director or blow up the center and counting...they average one felony conviction per year for violence against the SPLC. Because of repeated terrorist attacks and a devastating firebombing in 1983, their new headquarters has 8-ft concrete walls, and is ringed by a high blast wall, and monitored by a 24/7 secret service type private counter-terrorism detail. My large wheelchair van definitely gave them pause...

I get that part of the White (no offense) CLs doctrine requires them to recoil at these laws.But if there is no evidence of them acting on these convictions on behalf of civil rights, even at the expense of "small government" then I have a right (by the logic of history) to posit that the probability of those White (no offense) CLs will come to "the rescue" is not defensible by their voting history. Their rhetoric and their voting history have no correlation.Even if their spirit may be willing but the flesh is weak.

Doondi69 wrote:One big facet of my question is to find out just exactly how WHITE CLs voted for these inititiaves in the past compared to WHITE MLs.

The South is known for a near-total absence of civil libertarians (CLs) and market libertarians (MLs). Throughout American history, South Carolina has been a leading voice for protectionism and tariffs, the polar opposite of what market libertarians advocate. Recently, Alabama has been rounding up immigrants, even children in classrooms, everybody presumed guilty; this is abhorrent to civil liberties! Meanwhile, Tennessee is considering restrictions on Islam and mosques, and has used federal Homeland Security funding to set up an Orwellian police state, complete with roadblock checkpoints to catch terrorists—ala the Palestinian Territories—across the state, the polar opposite of what civil libertarians advocate.

So civil libertarianism, much less market libertarianism, is barely relevant to any discussion of the South. The only civil liberties folks I met in Alabama were at the Southern Poverty Law Center, and they are great people doing wonderful work; unfortunately they work under siege, over 30 people have been jailed in connection with plots to kill the director or blow up the center and counting...they average one felony conviction per year for violence against the SPLC. Because of repeated terrorist attacks and a devastating firebombing in 1983, their new headquarters has 8-ft concrete walls, and is ringed by a high blast wall, and monitored by a 24/7 secret service type private counter-terrorism detail. My large wheelchair van definitely gave them pause...

The South has a long standing history of being "small government".... The market manifestation of this can be traced back to their cry of "no taxation without representation".... when the North insisted that they pay federal taxes on all those lovely goodies they received from europe in exchange for their tobacco and cotton and crops.

Since the factory industry of the north hadn't taken off yet the feds needed money...The South said nope.... and one thing to the next.... Civil War.

Under the umbrella of "small government" the white southerners wanted to control their means of production --- aka black slaves (theres a wealth transfer if you like) and no blacks owning the prime asset, land. Once that was lifted to maintain a low wage workforce they put in place Jim Crow....your free but your pay and your costs for retail services and goods purchased run in opposite directions.

This worked nicely until the feds felt that they had we can gain more votes if we get those blacks on our side. (Im in the 60s now) When kennedy saw the plights of black southerners he said that's really bad and someday we'll have to fix that.

When Tricky Dick was presented with an opportunity to help he said 'let me check with my southern constituency and I'll get back to ya.'

So now MLs and CLs claim have the common denominator of "small government" but one is claiming to be for minority rights (according to legend) while the other simply doesn't care.And if you force that then we're going to do a little dance call nullification.

So I am saying that according to history MLs and CLs is a distinction without a difference, as far as actually casting votes in minority civil rights. Neither in 50s, 60s, 70s, 80s, 90s....etc.For both MLs and CLs "small government" trumps your need for fair lending, housing education or any other such concerns.

Both CLs and MLs responded the same way to the sit-ins when it comes down to it.The owner has the right to deny anyone service that he chooses.

If there is no difference - historically then I feel that Dan deserves a chiding.Obama signed a bill that exposes us to potential violationDan puts an emphasis on "small government" over the rights of minorities - thus making his position virtually equal to MLs. and exposes the rest of us to KNOWN (vice potential) risk.

I think for there are some that have responded to my (at times strained metaphors) or out of too many layers of 'Loss of the Kingdom for want of a Nail' while others are just ignore or red herring.

I'm hoping that the ones that are soul searching to respond so that we can move the conversation forward.

Thanks man for taking the time look at my ramblings.... let me know if I've missed stated the state of affairs regarding my boil down of the history of how the South used and are using the fig leaf of "small government" to blunt the spirit of the CRA and others.

Doondi69 wrote:If there is no difference - historically then I feel that Dan deserves a chiding.Obama signed a bill that exposes us to potential violationDan puts an emphasis on "small government" over the rights of minorities - thus making his position virtually equal to MLs. and exposes the rest of us to KNOWN (vice potential) risk.

I ask everyone who is participating in this debate Do you ever think Dan has put emphasis on "small government" over the rights of minorities ever, more importantly has anyone ever asked Dan if this is his stance. Because otherwise Doondi69 is just pulling incorrect assumptions out of the aether

By the way Doondi69 i re-read the thread and came across a point Dan himself made that you never responded to......

Dan wrote:I appreciate your critique, but I don't understand it. As far as I can tell, you are unaware of my positions on the issues. I am, as just one example, a supporter of the civil rights acts and civil rights laws. So when you call me on these subjects, I don't know what to say...since I've never not supported them.

You are unaware of Dan's stances and therefore your attempts to criticise those stances are futile